PDA

View Full Version : Cutting down/dieting


Joe
August 6th 04, 05:17 PM
What kind of food should I be eating in if I am to start my first ever
"cutting down" or dieting stage? I've been eating a lot and put on extra
muscle over the past three months but I now want to reduce my belly and
love-handles. Should I continue doing the same resistance training as during
my bulking stage? Should I increase cardio or will the resistance suffice?

TIA

Chupacabra
August 6th 04, 06:13 PM
On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 17:17:54 +0100, "Joe" > wrote:

>What kind of food should I be eating in if I am to start my first ever
>"cutting down" or dieting stage?

The kind where you eat less of it.

>I've been eating a lot and put on extra
>muscle over the past three months but I now want to reduce my belly and
>love-handles. Should I continue doing the same resistance training as during
>my bulking stage?

Depends ($ to Lyle)

>Should I increase cardio or will the resistance suffice?

More $ to Lyle.

Hugh Beyer
August 6th 04, 06:40 PM
Chupacabra > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 17:17:54 +0100, "Joe" > wrote:
>
>>What kind of food should I be eating in if I am to start my first ever
>>"cutting down" or dieting stage?
>
> The kind where you eat less of it.
>
>>I've been eating a lot and put on extra
>>muscle over the past three months but I now want to reduce my belly and
>>love-handles. Should I continue doing the same resistance training as
>>during my bulking stage?
>
> Depends ($ to Lyle)
>
>>Should I increase cardio or will the resistance suffice?
>
> More $ to Lyle.
>
>

OK, since you're asking I'll post my experience.

IANAE, but I recommend some variation on zigzag dieting. I've been
experimenting with this for the last two months. The idea is you diet hard
some days out of the week (say 5) and eat over maintenance the other days.
The "zigzag" term is Fred Hatfield's but there are lots of variations
including CKD and Lyle's UD2.0.

What I've been doing is eating about 1000 cal a day (!) during the week
and eating ad libitum, as they say, the weekend. 1000 cal a day is a
little less than 1000 cal under maintenance for me, so in theory that
would be 2 lbs a week lost; in practice the libitum got pretty liberal
some weekends and so I didn't lose quite that. The weekday menu is very
low-carb mostly because to keep the protein up and get the cals that low,
nearly all the carbs had to go. The weekends look like stuffing all the
carbs and protein down the hatch I can.

I can't give you hard numbers for how it's worked for me, but the mirror's
looking good these days. I have calipers but do not trust my measurements
at all--best I can do is say the waist's been shrinking while the chest
and bi's (where I carry no fat to speak of) have been holding steady or
increasing.

Yes, the week is kind of painful. I tolerate hunger well and low-carb
doesn't affect my energy levels. (I actually don't notice hunger much
except at mealtimes, but doing this I've been hungry for about an hour
after meals, such as they are.) YMMV.

Hugh


--
No puppies were harmed in the creation of this post.

Larry Hodges
August 7th 04, 05:34 AM
Hugh Beyer wrote:
> Chupacabra > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 17:17:54 +0100, "Joe" > wrote:
>>
>>> What kind of food should I be eating in if I am to start my first
>>> ever "cutting down" or dieting stage?
>>
>> The kind where you eat less of it.
>>
>>> I've been eating a lot and put on extra
>>> muscle over the past three months but I now want to reduce my belly
>>> and love-handles. Should I continue doing the same resistance
>>> training as during my bulking stage?
>>
>> Depends ($ to Lyle)
>>
>>> Should I increase cardio or will the resistance suffice?
>>
>> More $ to Lyle.
>>
>>
>
> OK, since you're asking I'll post my experience.
>
> IANAE, but I recommend some variation on zigzag dieting. I've been
> experimenting with this for the last two months. The idea is you diet
> hard some days out of the week (say 5) and eat over maintenance the
> other days. The "zigzag" term is Fred Hatfield's but there are lots
> of variations including CKD and Lyle's UD2.0.
>
> What I've been doing is eating about 1000 cal a day (!) during the
> week and eating ad libitum, as they say, the weekend. 1000 cal a day
> is a little less than 1000 cal under maintenance for me, so in theory
> that would be 2 lbs a week lost; in practice the libitum got pretty
> liberal some weekends and so I didn't lose quite that. The weekday
> menu is very low-carb mostly because to keep the protein up and get
> the cals that low, nearly all the carbs had to go. The weekends look
> like stuffing all the carbs and protein down the hatch I can.
>
> I can't give you hard numbers for how it's worked for me, but the
> mirror's looking good these days. I have calipers but do not trust my
> measurements at all--best I can do is say the waist's been shrinking
> while the chest and bi's (where I carry no fat to speak of) have been
> holding steady or increasing.
>
> Yes, the week is kind of painful. I tolerate hunger well and low-carb
> doesn't affect my energy levels. (I actually don't notice hunger much
> except at mealtimes, but doing this I've been hungry for about an hour
> after meals, such as they are.) YMMV.
>
> Hugh

Dude, I've tried that kind of stuff, but it's so radical...it ****s up my
metabolism big time. I've found better results by cutting 500 to 1000 cal
per day for a week or two. And I'm not anal about it. If I have a day in
there where I want pizza and ice cream, down the hatch. But I'll stick to
this for a couple of weeks, then eat without restriction (I assume it's at
or above because I don't track it) for a couple of weeks. I'm not too
formal about it, but it's been working for the last three months or so. By
working, I mean I'm leaning out, yet keeping my weight at 195~. BF was
14.4% a week ago at the end of a bulking cycle. I'd like to see 10% by
December.
--
-Larry

John
August 7th 04, 03:09 PM
"Larry Hodges" > wrote in message
...
> Hugh Beyer wrote:
> > Chupacabra > wrote in
> > :
> >
> >> On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 17:17:54 +0100, "Joe" > wrote:
> >>
> >>> What kind of food should I be eating in if I am to start my first
> >>> ever "cutting down" or dieting stage?
> >>
> >> The kind where you eat less of it.
> >>
> >>> I've been eating a lot and put on extra
> >>> muscle over the past three months but I now want to reduce my belly
> >>> and love-handles. Should I continue doing the same resistance
> >>> training as during my bulking stage?
> >>
> >> Depends ($ to Lyle)
> >>
> >>> Should I increase cardio or will the resistance suffice?
> >>
> >> More $ to Lyle.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > OK, since you're asking I'll post my experience.
> >
> > IANAE, but I recommend some variation on zigzag dieting. I've been
> > experimenting with this for the last two months. The idea is you diet
> > hard some days out of the week (say 5) and eat over maintenance the
> > other days. The "zigzag" term is Fred Hatfield's but there are lots
> > of variations including CKD and Lyle's UD2.0.
> >
> > What I've been doing is eating about 1000 cal a day (!) during the
> > week and eating ad libitum, as they say, the weekend. 1000 cal a day
> > is a little less than 1000 cal under maintenance for me, so in theory
> > that would be 2 lbs a week lost; in practice the libitum got pretty
> > liberal some weekends and so I didn't lose quite that. The weekday
> > menu is very low-carb mostly because to keep the protein up and get
> > the cals that low, nearly all the carbs had to go. The weekends look
> > like stuffing all the carbs and protein down the hatch I can.
> >
> > I can't give you hard numbers for how it's worked for me, but the
> > mirror's looking good these days. I have calipers but do not trust my
> > measurements at all--best I can do is say the waist's been shrinking
> > while the chest and bi's (where I carry no fat to speak of) have been
> > holding steady or increasing.
> >
> > Yes, the week is kind of painful. I tolerate hunger well and low-carb
> > doesn't affect my energy levels. (I actually don't notice hunger much
> > except at mealtimes, but doing this I've been hungry for about an hour
> > after meals, such as they are.) YMMV.
> >
> > Hugh
>
> Dude, I've tried that kind of stuff, but it's so radical...it ****s up my
> metabolism big time. I've found better results by cutting 500 to 1000 cal
> per day for a week or two. And I'm not anal about it. If I have a day in
> there where I want pizza and ice cream, down the hatch. But I'll stick to
> this for a couple of weeks, then eat without restriction (I assume it's at
> or above because I don't track it) for a couple of weeks. I'm not too
> formal about it, but it's been working for the last three months or so.
By
> working, I mean I'm leaning out, yet keeping my weight at 195~. BF was
> 14.4% a week ago at the end of a bulking cycle. I'd like to see 10% by
> December.

What sort of food is good for filling you up but having low calories? Is
pasta, bread, potatoes etc. good or bad for lowering body fat?

Hugh Beyer
August 7th 04, 04:15 PM
"John" > wrote in :

> "Larry Hodges" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Hugh Beyer wrote:
>> > Chupacabra > wrote in
>> > :
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 17:17:54 +0100, "Joe" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> What kind of food should I be eating in if I am to start my first
>> >>> ever "cutting down" or dieting stage?
>> >>
>> >> The kind where you eat less of it.
>> >>
>> >>> I've been eating a lot and put on extra
>> >>> muscle over the past three months but I now want to reduce my belly
>> >>> and love-handles. Should I continue doing the same resistance
>> >>> training as during my bulking stage?
>> >>
>> >> Depends ($ to Lyle)
>> >>
>> >>> Should I increase cardio or will the resistance suffice?
>> >>
>> >> More $ to Lyle.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > OK, since you're asking I'll post my experience.
>> >
>> > IANAE, but I recommend some variation on zigzag dieting. I've been
>> > experimenting with this for the last two months. The idea is you diet
>> > hard some days out of the week (say 5) and eat over maintenance the
>> > other days. The "zigzag" term is Fred Hatfield's but there are lots
>> > of variations including CKD and Lyle's UD2.0.
>> >
>> > What I've been doing is eating about 1000 cal a day (!) during the
>> > week and eating ad libitum, as they say, the weekend. 1000 cal a day
>> > is a little less than 1000 cal under maintenance for me, so in theory
>> > that would be 2 lbs a week lost; in practice the libitum got pretty
>> > liberal some weekends and so I didn't lose quite that. The weekday
>> > menu is very low-carb mostly because to keep the protein up and get
>> > the cals that low, nearly all the carbs had to go. The weekends look
>> > like stuffing all the carbs and protein down the hatch I can.
>> >
>> > I can't give you hard numbers for how it's worked for me, but the
>> > mirror's looking good these days. I have calipers but do not trust my
>> > measurements at all--best I can do is say the waist's been shrinking
>> > while the chest and bi's (where I carry no fat to speak of) have been
>> > holding steady or increasing.
>> >
>> > Yes, the week is kind of painful. I tolerate hunger well and low-carb
>> > doesn't affect my energy levels. (I actually don't notice hunger much
>> > except at mealtimes, but doing this I've been hungry for about an
>> > hour after meals, such as they are.) YMMV.
>> >
>> > Hugh
>>
>> Dude, I've tried that kind of stuff, but it's so radical...it ****s up
>> my metabolism big time. I've found better results by cutting 500 to
>> 1000 cal per day for a week or two. And I'm not anal about it. If I
>> have a day in there where I want pizza and ice cream, down the hatch.
>> But I'll stick to this for a couple of weeks, then eat without
>> restriction (I assume it's at or above because I don't track it) for a
>> couple of weeks. I'm not too formal about it, but it's been working
>> for the last three months or so. By
>> working, I mean I'm leaning out, yet keeping my weight at 195~. BF was
>> 14.4% a week ago at the end of a bulking cycle. I'd like to see 10% by
>> December.

Yeah, I think I need to moderate it. I'm down to ~11% and my plan is to
keep the cycling but make it less extreme. Except that I'm on the road the
next week and a half, which I'm going to treat as a bulking cycle. Woo-
hoo.

>
> What sort of food is good for filling you up but having low calories? Is
> pasta, bread, potatoes etc. good or bad for lowering body fat?
>

Pasta, bread, potatos, etc. will give you an astounding number of calories
per pound. For filling up, go with protein, fiber, and fat (fat's
calorie-dense too, but fills you up faster).

Hugh

--
No puppies were harmed in the creation of this post.

Mistress Krista
August 7th 04, 04:17 PM
"Hugh Beyer" > wrote in message
...
> Pasta, bread, potatos, etc. will give you an astounding number of calories
> per pound. For filling up, go with protein, fiber, and fat (fat's
> calorie-dense too, but fills you up faster).
>


Fruits and vegetables are a good start.


Krista

--
http://www.stumptuous.com/weights.html
http://www.trans-health.com
mistresskrista at stumptuous dot com

DRS
August 7th 04, 04:18 PM
"Hugh Beyer" > wrote in message

> "John" > wrote in :

[...]

>> What sort of food is good for filling you up but having low
>> calories? Is pasta, bread, potatoes etc. good or bad for lowering
>> body fat?
>
> Pasta, bread, potatos, etc. will give you an astounding number of
> calories per pound. For filling up, go with protein, fiber, and fat
> (fat's calorie-dense too, but fills you up faster).
>
High fat's been shown to increase appetite, not decrease it.

--

"I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as
equals."
Winston Churchill

Chupacabra
August 7th 04, 04:52 PM
On Sun, 8 Aug 2004 01:18:40 +1000, "DRS" >
wrote:

>"Hugh Beyer" > wrote in message

>> "John" > wrote in :
>
>[...]
>
>>> What sort of food is good for filling you up but having low
>>> calories? Is pasta, bread, potatoes etc. good or bad for lowering
>>> body fat?
>>
>> Pasta, bread, potatos, etc. will give you an astounding number of
>> calories per pound. For filling up, go with protein, fiber, and fat
>> (fat's calorie-dense too, but fills you up faster).
>>
>High fat's been shown to increase appetite, not decrease it.

Um, no.

DRS
August 7th 04, 04:59 PM
"Chupacabra" > wrote in message

> On Sun, 8 Aug 2004 01:18:40 +1000, "DRS" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Hugh Beyer" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "John" > wrote in
>>> :
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> What sort of food is good for filling you up but having low
>>>> calories? Is pasta, bread, potatoes etc. good or bad for lowering
>>>> body fat?
>>>
>>> Pasta, bread, potatos, etc. will give you an astounding number of
>>> calories per pound. For filling up, go with protein, fiber, and fat
>>> (fat's calorie-dense too, but fills you up faster).
>>>
>> High fat's been shown to increase appetite, not decrease it.
>
> Um, no.

Um, yes.

NARRATOR: If fat was the magic ingredient that switches appetite off, then
the men eating the high fat food would [need] fewer calories than normal to
feel full. After four hundred and eighty six meals the results were clear.
The fat was having the exact opposite effect. The men on the high fat food
needed more calories to satisfy their appetite. They were actually
overeating.

Dr SUSAN JEBB: What we conclude from that is that fat doesn't make people
feel full. It doesn't trigger the sense of fullness and satiety that we
believe is fundamental to appetite control.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2004/atkinstrans.shtml

--

"I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as
equals."
Winston Churchill

John M. Williams
August 7th 04, 05:15 PM
"DRS" > wrote:
>"Chupacabra" > wrote:
>> "DRS" > wrote:
>>> "Hugh Beyer" > wrote:
>>>> "John" > wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>> What sort of food is good for filling you up but having low
>>>>> calories? Is pasta, bread, potatoes etc. good or bad for lowering
>>>>> body fat?
>>>>
>>>> Pasta, bread, potatos, etc. will give you an astounding number of
>>>> calories per pound. For filling up, go with protein, fiber, and fat
>>>> (fat's calorie-dense too, but fills you up faster).
>>>>
>>> High fat's been shown to increase appetite, not decrease it.
>>
>> Um, no.
>
>Um, yes.
>
>NARRATOR: If fat was the magic ingredient that switches appetite off, then
>the men eating the high fat food would [need] fewer calories than normal to
>feel full. After four hundred and eighty six meals the results were clear.
>The fat was having the exact opposite effect. The men on the high fat food
>needed more calories to satisfy their appetite. They were actually
>overeating.
>
>Dr SUSAN JEBB: What we conclude from that is that fat doesn't make people
>feel full. It doesn't trigger the sense of fullness and satiety that we
>believe is fundamental to appetite control.
>
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2004/atkinstrans.shtml

What a wonderful, peer-reviewed, scientific reference, Davey. Here's
the full text that you snipped out:

"Dr SUSAN JEBB: We used things like spaghetti bolognaise or mousses so
that you could because easily disguise the fat content of the food.

"NARRATOR: None of the volunteers knew which type of food they were
getting. But half of them were eating low fat meals, and half were
eating high fat meals.

"Dr SUSAN JEBB: What we told them is they could eat as much or as
little as they wanted and they simply just had to ask when they wanted
more food.

"NARRATOR: If fat was the magic ingredient that switches appetite off,
then the men eating the high fat food would fewer calories than normal
to feel full. After four hundred and eighty six meals the results were
clear. The fat was having the exact opposite effect. The men on the
high fat food needed more calories to satisfy their appetite. They
were actually overeating."

So, they were NOT controlling for carbs, but rather, were feeding
high-carb meals (e.g., spaghetti) secretly laced with a higher fat
content. What an incredible piece of deceptive junk science!

And before you try to weasel out of this by saying, "I didn't say
anything about carbs!" please note that the prior messages WERE
directed at high-carb foods.

Keith Hobman
August 7th 04, 05:20 PM
In article >, John M. Williams
> wrote:

> "DRS" > wrote:
> >"Chupacabra" > wrote:
> >> "DRS" > wrote:
> >>> "Hugh Beyer" > wrote:
> >>>> "John" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>>>> What sort of food is good for filling you up but having low
> >>>>> calories? Is pasta, bread, potatoes etc. good or bad for lowering
> >>>>> body fat?
> >>>>
> >>>> Pasta, bread, potatos, etc. will give you an astounding number of
> >>>> calories per pound. For filling up, go with protein, fiber, and fat
> >>>> (fat's calorie-dense too, but fills you up faster).
> >>>>
> >>> High fat's been shown to increase appetite, not decrease it.
> >>
> >> Um, no.
> >
> >Um, yes.
> >
> >NARRATOR: If fat was the magic ingredient that switches appetite off, then
> >the men eating the high fat food would [need] fewer calories than normal to
> >feel full. After four hundred and eighty six meals the results were clear.
> >The fat was having the exact opposite effect. The men on the high fat food
> >needed more calories to satisfy their appetite. They were actually
> >overeating.
> >
> >Dr SUSAN JEBB: What we conclude from that is that fat doesn't make people
> >feel full. It doesn't trigger the sense of fullness and satiety that we
> >believe is fundamental to appetite control.
> >
> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2004/atkinstrans.shtml
>
> What a wonderful, peer-reviewed, scientific reference, Davey. Here's
> the full text that you snipped out:
>
> "Dr SUSAN JEBB: We used things like spaghetti bolognaise or mousses so
> that you could because easily disguise the fat content of the food.
>
> "NARRATOR: None of the volunteers knew which type of food they were
> getting. But half of them were eating low fat meals, and half were
> eating high fat meals.
>
> "Dr SUSAN JEBB: What we told them is they could eat as much or as
> little as they wanted and they simply just had to ask when they wanted
> more food.
>
> "NARRATOR: If fat was the magic ingredient that switches appetite off,
> then the men eating the high fat food would fewer calories than normal
> to feel full. After four hundred and eighty six meals the results were
> clear. The fat was having the exact opposite effect. The men on the
> high fat food needed more calories to satisfy their appetite. They
> were actually overeating."
>
> So, they were NOT controlling for carbs, but rather, were feeding
> high-carb meals (e.g., spaghetti) secretly laced with a higher fat
> content. What an incredible piece of deceptive junk science!
>
> And before you try to weasel out of this by saying, "I didn't say
> anything about carbs!" please note that the prior messages WERE
> directed at high-carb foods.

Dayum. That was very selective snipping.

--
Dawn's cold kiss calls me
Forth I creep, blindly stumbling
Joy: Morning workouts.
Hugh Beyer's 'Haiku On Returning To Weights'

DRS
August 7th 04, 05:39 PM
"Keith Hobman" > wrote in message

>> "DRS" > wrote:

[...]

>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2004/atkinstrans.shtml
>>
>> "Dr SUSAN JEBB: We used things like spaghetti bolognaise or mousses
>> so that you could because easily disguise the fat content of the
>> food.
>>
>> "NARRATOR: None of the volunteers knew which type of food they were
>> getting. But half of them were eating low fat meals, and half were
>> eating high fat meals.
>>
>> "Dr SUSAN JEBB: What we told them is they could eat as much or as
>> little as they wanted and they simply just had to ask when they
>> wanted more food.
>>
>> "NARRATOR: If fat was the magic ingredient that switches appetite
>> off, then the men eating the high fat food would fewer calories than
>> normal to feel full. After four hundred and eighty six meals the
>> results were clear. The fat was having the exact opposite effect.
>> The men on the high fat food needed more calories to satisfy their
>> appetite. They were actually overeating."
>>
>> So, they were NOT controlling for carbs, but rather, were feeding
>> high-carb meals (e.g., spaghetti) secretly laced with a higher fat
>> content. What an incredible piece of deceptive junk science!
>>
>> And before you try to weasel out of this by saying, "I didn't say
>> anything about carbs!" please note that the prior messages WERE
>> directed at high-carb foods.
>
> Dayum. That was very selective snipping.

How so? There were two meals, apparently identical, but one with twice the
fats content of the other. If fats reduced appetite those eating the high
fats meals should have eaten less than the control group but instead they
ate more. How is that junk science (the deception was obviously necessary)
or, for that matter, selective snipping? The conclusion fitted the text and
since I gave the link anyone who wanted the full details was easily able to
do so, which is the standard way of citing.

--

"I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as
equals."
Winston Churchill

Keith Hobman
August 7th 04, 05:49 PM
In article >, "DRS"
> wrote:

> "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
>
> >> "DRS" > wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2004/atkinstrans.shtml
> >>
> >> "Dr SUSAN JEBB: We used things like spaghetti bolognaise or mousses
> >> so that you could because easily disguise the fat content of the
> >> food.
> >>
> >> "NARRATOR: None of the volunteers knew which type of food they were
> >> getting. But half of them were eating low fat meals, and half were
> >> eating high fat meals.
> >>
> >> "Dr SUSAN JEBB: What we told them is they could eat as much or as
> >> little as they wanted and they simply just had to ask when they
> >> wanted more food.
> >>
> >> "NARRATOR: If fat was the magic ingredient that switches appetite
> >> off, then the men eating the high fat food would fewer calories than
> >> normal to feel full. After four hundred and eighty six meals the
> >> results were clear. The fat was having the exact opposite effect.
> >> The men on the high fat food needed more calories to satisfy their
> >> appetite. They were actually overeating."
> >>
> >> So, they were NOT controlling for carbs, but rather, were feeding
> >> high-carb meals (e.g., spaghetti) secretly laced with a higher fat
> >> content. What an incredible piece of deceptive junk science!
> >>
> >> And before you try to weasel out of this by saying, "I didn't say
> >> anything about carbs!" please note that the prior messages WERE
> >> directed at high-carb foods.
> >
> > Dayum. That was very selective snipping.
>
> How so? There were two meals, apparently identical, but one with twice the
> fats content of the other. If fats reduced appetite those eating the high
> fats meals should have eaten less than the control group but instead they
> ate more. How is that junk science (the deception was obviously necessary)
> or, for that matter, selective snipping? The conclusion fitted the text and
> since I gave the link anyone who wanted the full details was easily able to
> do so, which is the standard way of citing.

First, it is not a study or a scientific reference at all. It is a conversation.

Second, the conclusion that the high fat content was causing over-eating
is highly dubious given the nature of the meals, which are high carb and
the way the fat was hidden. The people who ingested the high fat meals ate
more calories, but it would be interesting to see if the difference was
actually significant and if the increase in calories was beyond the higher
caloric content of the same plate of spaghetti. IOW - did they eat the
same amount of spaghetti and ingest more calories due to the fat? If so it
would suggest that portion size is a more important determinant than
hidden high fat content in a high carb meal.

Any way you look at it - poor science, very much an opinion rather than a
study and you selectively snipped relevant information - the spaghetti.

--
Dawn's cold kiss calls me
Forth I creep, blindly stumbling
Joy: Morning workouts.
Hugh Beyer's 'Haiku On Returning To Weights'

John M. Williams
August 7th 04, 05:49 PM
"DRS" > wrote:

>"Keith Hobman" > wrote in message

>>> "DRS" > wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2004/atkinstrans.shtml
>>>
>>> "Dr SUSAN JEBB: We used things like spaghetti bolognaise or mousses
>>> so that you could because easily disguise the fat content of the
>>> food.
>>>
>>> "NARRATOR: None of the volunteers knew which type of food they were
>>> getting. But half of them were eating low fat meals, and half were
>>> eating high fat meals.
>>>
>>> "Dr SUSAN JEBB: What we told them is they could eat as much or as
>>> little as they wanted and they simply just had to ask when they
>>> wanted more food.
>>>
>>> "NARRATOR: If fat was the magic ingredient that switches appetite
>>> off, then the men eating the high fat food would fewer calories than
>>> normal to feel full. After four hundred and eighty six meals the
>>> results were clear. The fat was having the exact opposite effect.
>>> The men on the high fat food needed more calories to satisfy their
>>> appetite. They were actually overeating."
>>>
>>> So, they were NOT controlling for carbs, but rather, were feeding
>>> high-carb meals (e.g., spaghetti) secretly laced with a higher fat
>>> content. What an incredible piece of deceptive junk science!
>>>
>>> And before you try to weasel out of this by saying, "I didn't say
>>> anything about carbs!" please note that the prior messages WERE
>>> directed at high-carb foods.
>>
>> Dayum. That was very selective snipping.
>
>How so?

Your conclusions did not address the issues raised in the original
question. You intentionally changed the paradigm in order to be
"right." In your case, that's par for the course.

Larry Hodges
August 7th 04, 07:22 PM
John wrote:
> "Larry Hodges" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Hugh Beyer wrote:
>>> Chupacabra > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 17:17:54 +0100, "Joe" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What kind of food should I be eating in if I am to start my first
>>>>> ever "cutting down" or dieting stage?
>>>>
>>>> The kind where you eat less of it.
>>>>
>>>>> I've been eating a lot and put on extra
>>>>> muscle over the past three months but I now want to reduce my
>>>>> belly and love-handles. Should I continue doing the same
>>>>> resistance training as during my bulking stage?
>>>>
>>>> Depends ($ to Lyle)
>>>>
>>>>> Should I increase cardio or will the resistance suffice?
>>>>
>>>> More $ to Lyle.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK, since you're asking I'll post my experience.
>>>
>>> IANAE, but I recommend some variation on zigzag dieting. I've been
>>> experimenting with this for the last two months. The idea is you
>>> diet hard some days out of the week (say 5) and eat over
>>> maintenance the other days. The "zigzag" term is Fred Hatfield's
>>> but there are lots of variations including CKD and Lyle's UD2.0.
>>>
>>> What I've been doing is eating about 1000 cal a day (!) during the
>>> week and eating ad libitum, as they say, the weekend. 1000 cal a day
>>> is a little less than 1000 cal under maintenance for me, so in
>>> theory that would be 2 lbs a week lost; in practice the libitum got
>>> pretty liberal some weekends and so I didn't lose quite that. The
>>> weekday menu is very low-carb mostly because to keep the protein up
>>> and get the cals that low, nearly all the carbs had to go. The
>>> weekends look like stuffing all the carbs and protein down the
>>> hatch I can.
>>>
>>> I can't give you hard numbers for how it's worked for me, but the
>>> mirror's looking good these days. I have calipers but do not trust
>>> my measurements at all--best I can do is say the waist's been
>>> shrinking while the chest and bi's (where I carry no fat to speak
>>> of) have been holding steady or increasing.
>>>
>>> Yes, the week is kind of painful. I tolerate hunger well and
>>> low-carb doesn't affect my energy levels. (I actually don't notice
>>> hunger much except at mealtimes, but doing this I've been hungry
>>> for about an hour after meals, such as they are.) YMMV.
>>>
>>> Hugh
>>
>> Dude, I've tried that kind of stuff, but it's so radical...it ****s
>> up my metabolism big time. I've found better results by cutting 500
>> to 1000 cal per day for a week or two. And I'm not anal about it.
>> If I have a day in there where I want pizza and ice cream, down the
>> hatch. But I'll stick to this for a couple of weeks, then eat
>> without restriction (I assume it's at or above because I don't track
>> it) for a couple of weeks. I'm not too formal about it, but it's
>> been working for the last three months or so. By working, I mean I'm
>> leaning out, yet keeping my weight at 195~. BF was
>> 14.4% a week ago at the end of a bulking cycle. I'd like to see 10%
>> by December.
>
> What sort of food is good for filling you up but having low calories?
> Is pasta, bread, potatoes etc. good or bad for lowering body fat?

For me, it's how I eat as much as what I eat. I eat about every two hours,
and I make it a point to eat *before* I get hungry. This allows my brain to
handle portion control, not my stomach.

My typical day consists of eggs or oatmeal in the morning. Then I make two
sandwiches...a PBJ and a turkey or tuna. I cut them in half, then eat half
a sandwich about every two hours throughout the day. I'll also have some
fruit and sunflower seeds during this time. That gets me to about 5pm, at
which time I'll do a 50g protein shake with a banana, then hit the gym.

The above is the same regardless of bulking / cutting. After workout is
where it's different for me, which is evening. If I'm bulking, I eat
whatever. No junk, but stuff like spaghetti with another protein shake, BBQ
hamburgers and a bowl of frosted mini wheats (my favorite dessert), whatever
I want really. I don't stop eating until I'm full.

When I'm cutting, my after workout dinner will be maybe another protein
shake and a salad. Or maybe a large salad with red peppers, carrots, onion,
salsa and a can of tuna on top in a large serving bowl. Later, if I can't
control the hunger, oranges or something. Or, just go hungry. It's a
matter of resolve. It won't kill you to go hungry. And I find that the
hunger will pass in a few minutes and become bearable if I just don't feed
it.

The hardest times in cutting is when I do squats. That night and the next
day, I could eat paint off the walls. I'm famished. Those days, I give
myself leeway even if I'm cutting.

I'm no expert on this stuff, and maybe somebody else has something better.
But this has been sustainable for me, which is better than something more
hardcore that isn't.
--
-Larry

ray miller
August 7th 04, 08:07 PM
>>> High fat's been shown to increase appetite, not decrease it.

This was part of the BBC's Diet Trials programme and follow up. The
programme was a great success and is being written up. Unfortunately I
don't know where to look for the papers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/diettrials/
One of their conclusions was that protein was best at satisfying
appetite (out of protein, carbs and fat), and acknowledges that this
went against the common assumption that fat was more satisfying.
They gave the impression that low-carb diets worked so well because
people naturally ate fewer calories if they ate lots of protein, and
fewer carbs, which makes sense to me.

If fat is so satisfying why does no-one recommend a high fat diet to
lose weight?

Ray.
--
rmnsuk
273/189/182